I think in the future these need ot be secret ballot type of votes with everyone voting via the vote option for a poll or in another fashion so anyone isn't swayed by another members vote. Just my 2 cents.

I think in the future these need ot be secret ballot type of votes with everyone voting via the vote option for a poll or in another fashion so anyone isn't swayed by another members vote. Just my 2 cents.

But seriously, I think we need one certain dungeon back among the finalists..two or three actually, now that I think about it. I say we start over again.

here's another thought...we should have three winners..1st 2nd 3rd..too many people have great entries!

Oh and furthermore, we dont need "finalists" in my opinion...maybe my favorite dungeon got a 4.4...maybe that is also teh favorite dungeon of 10 other people! We should vote on ALL Quest submissions, me'thinks.

PoisonAlchemist: Man Muro, you boost my confidence and then you just go crush it with a heartbreaking work of staggering genius.Pariah: Don't tell him things like that, if his head gets any bigger he'll float off like a weather ballon :p

well, for this to be a suitable contest, we all cannot be winners. I think the winner and runner up is enough.

As for criteria, 4.5 minimum score seems fine to me, I did several dungeon submissions and only one met the requirements, seems fair. It is a contest and should have strong guidelines.

I do support the secret ballot also, since it could very easily sway voting, and if the vote is visible before the end date, it could create a situation of politicking for votes and i do despize politics in its many and vile forms.

not all winners...just three. And the quest is the contest itself. So I'm not sure a further "finalists" list is needed.It makes no difference if say, a dungeon is included that scored a combined 2.5. You simply ignore it and move on. IMHO, there is something wron with being told which subs I'm allowed to vote on for victory.

PoisonAlchemist: Man Muro, you boost my confidence and then you just go crush it with a heartbreaking work of staggering genius.Pariah: Don't tell him things like that, if his head gets any bigger he'll float off like a weather ballon :p

The rules are no surprise and I heartily echo AG's comment on keeping this one the way it is. I can't see it being entirely fair to change the rules in the middle just because something doesn't work out the way we think it should. So no more belly aching on how this one turned out.

Had to have a combined vote of 4.5 or better.Had to meet the quest requirements

And then a small addition added

Quote

In order to win, you must vote.You may not vote on your own submission.

Bang. There it is. I want to make sure Ria knows that we aren't picking on her because she is heading it. I love Ria for putting it together and taking the reigns on this. She did everything in the open and she would have taken any suggestion we threw at her. We didn't make any other rule suggestions (that I could find) so she ran with it exactly as announced. A+ on Ria's part!!!

That said, maybe we need to make some changes because this one didn't turn out how maybe we think it should. ( hypocrite )

Great. Improvement is always good and you can't always guess what is going to happen when you start something. I am happy that people care enough about it to make the suggestions so lets fix it.

The Poll options: You can have a poll and hide the results till the poll is over. However, this only allows one choice. If you think we have enough voters to make the top two be valid winners than that is fine. Could have two polls as well I suppose. One for first and one for second and do it that way. Might have to test that idea.

PM secret ballot is too labor intensive I think. Rather be like it is then go that route.

Having all the submissions available to vote on. I am tossing back and forth on this one. I think chances are pretty safe that only those with a high vote are going to make it into our vote so it might a bit too much to have them all options. If you wanted to do the top 20% or lower the threshold to a 4.0, that might make more sense than allowing them all. It just isn't necessary to list them all I don't think.

I agree we shouldn't change the rules in the middle of voting, but perhaps some of these ideas could be considered for the next quest.

I think some of these solutions are the cures to the problems they create. If all quest subsmissions are put into the voting and everyone has one vote, no one's going to waste their precious vote on something with a low score. If the score is so low, it's because people voted it down, and they certainly aren't going to waste their contest vote on them. And if we want it a secret ballot, we don't have to worry about just having one vote because one is enough. I think everyone would win in this system. Except those hypothetical really bad subs, of course.

I hear and will consider rules changes. This is the way it was done last time, and people said it worked, so...

I don't mind having a poll up, and I think I could fix it so that people had two votes. Really, the reason I didn't do it this time is because that way there's no way to enforce the "don't vote for your own" thing. I have no problem with setting it up as an honor system, and just trusting people to not vote for their own, or eliminating that rule all together.

I point blank refuse to conduct voting through PMs. This is more to protect me than anything else. I really don't think it would be an issue, but I'd just rather avoid the entire possibility that I've manipulated the votes, particularly when my own sub is a contender. I wouldn't do it, but I'd rather avoid the hassle.

So of the choices presented, what do people really want to happen next time?

Oh, in case anyone's wondering, the way the winner is determined is a point system. Two points for a first choice vote, one for a second. When the voting closes, I'll add up the points.

Well, the best system would be double forum voting with an automatic email sent to an admin when we do. That email would contain the voter's choices and should an author vote for his own, he would gain -1 point instead.

No matter what we are doing, we will stick to the existing rules for the contest. I think the process, as we have it, is quite fair. We knew the process from last time and it worked. Most of the solutions will open up more problems than they will resolve.

Actually, I wound not mind secret voting, as it keep mob/herd voting and voting to appease ones friends to a minimum. Those are some of the reasons we change back from publically listing the score.

A PM to The Admin in charge would not be bad.... though then people will assume that the admin will be a King Maker and choose what they wanted. So perhaps a blank account that a couple of admins know the password too? This is do-able, but complicated.

Polling is just the same as posting your votes, except you get a little annonymity. However, their is no mechanism to prevent people from voting for their own subs. That is something we might want to avoid in a contest. Personally I have no belief in an honor system. Too many people will do what they can to win.

As for the run off process. Yes, the public vote should be 4.5 or better, with a miminum of the five highest rated. So if the fifth best rated is 4.3, that would go. HoH are too easy to obtain and are frequently just given because it is "new", but seven votes high enough to keep your rating above 4.5 is hard to do, thus worth it as a selection process.

Note: Now this does penalized the "artistic" or "different". People tend not to like them. If you submit a piece like that rather than one that is more one conventional, one needs to live with that result. I do this all the time and my scores reflect it. People often do not perceive what you see as the true value of what you post . Thus we suffer for our art or our choices of odd game systems/ setting. If you are in it for the scores, then you need to do more "conventional" posts. If you are in it for the Art, then ignore the scores AND contests.

Now about the running off: If we allow people to vote on any sub, rather than the ones that were publically scored high, then this become nothing more than a contest of "who has the most friends". Thus the votes make a good weeding system, as friends tend to vote higher for friends (though less inclined to do that now that we have secret voting). It is not perfect, but name any represenational process that is.

One winner is really all we need. If you want to give out more or have "almost good enough" ratings/ winners, then feel free. But do we need it? I personally think not.

I agree with some of what has been said. And far be it for me to lay claim that my opinion is better as it isn't. It's just different. My wife complains often that I view things too far outside the box than most people. Job related I am sure.

Now the secret ballot idea I think is a good idea however how to do that I am not sure. I don't code I just write.

Having more than five finalists I think could be a problem as well as it could confuse voters or cause to many to be voted on for a final decision. My idea when looking at this was odd to be sure.

Why take the sub votes into account? Looking at all the quest subs, not everyone who has voted has read all of the quest subs. I myself have not read/ voted on all so I am laying blame here as well. What good it a voters choice if they have only read three of the subs, they will choose and vote for those three that they have read for example and not even take into account of the other subs other members have put up. Its like taking the presidential polls and only counting 45 states and leaving the other 5 out simply because the voters don't care about the other 5 states. I don't really think you can give a 100% voters choice if the voters haven't read every quest submission and taken into account the entire playing field.

While this probably won't be taken seriously or considered I felt it should be noted as a viable issue.

Another idea. My sugesstion was either to list all quest subs down and have a master vote of what people like not including the sub votes but only as long as the people voting have read and commented on the quest subs. Say twenty subs were done. List those twenty in order of 1 - 20, 1 being the highest rated and 20 being the lowest. Then from everyone who votes take out the top five and have a vote on the winner and runner up. That way at least those voting will take some time to say, ok this was was good but I liked this one better. Another far outside the box thought.

My 2 cents. And I wasn't bringing any of this up to say the current way is wrong and needs to be done over as it wouldn't be fair to the current voters/ winners.

And now that our next quest is nearing, I believe it is time to revive old threads.

I personally don't mind limiting the choices down to a top 5-10. I know that I probably haven't read all of the posts, and the smaller group (maybe two for every five, with a minimum of five?) gives me the chance to read through the posts that are getting voted on, instead of just pulling one that I remember reading out of a hat. There is a point to limiting the number of posts getting voted on, but limiting them too much causes useless strife.

Logged

For the love of meat, shut up! No one wants to hear your emo character background! My hands are literally melting away, and I'm complaining less than you!—K'seliss, Goblins

I just think that everyone should be required to read and vote on all of the subs before voting. Other than reading two or three and only voting on those. It doesn't even the playing field if the other 20 subs are not read or voted so their 4.5 or better isn't even considered because the possibility of them getting a higher vote is gone for not everyone reading everything.

I feel that all votes and HOH should be taken into consideration and added and then the top numbers voted on. Before a person can vote they should prove that they have read the other subs or at least the ones that made it to the finalists. I just feel like Im beating a dead horse so off to work again.

I just think that everyone should be required to read and vote on all of the subs before voting. Other than reading two or three and only voting on those. It doesn't even the playing field if the other 20 subs are not read or voted so their 4.5 or better isn't even considered because the possibility of them getting a higher vote is gone for not everyone reading everything.

Everyone who is voting is pretty much reading and voting on all of them before hand. You can't force people to do it, but the active members of the Citadel pretty much read everything. Besides certain people did read the posts, but chose not to vote for what ever reason.

I feel that all votes and HOH should be taken into consideration and added and then the top numbers voted on. Before a person can vote they should prove that they have read the other subs or at least the ones that made it to the finalists. I just feel like Im beating a dead horse so off to work again.

HoH are just a function of bordom. They are not quite fufilling their conceptual role. HoH just means someone thought it was "neat" and there was nothing else for them to vote on, on a given day.

HoH are just a function of bordom. They are not quite fufilling their conceptual role. HoH just means someone thought it was "neat" and there was nothing else for them to vote on, on a given day.

A function of boredom?

This does not hold any truth for me. I use Hall of Honours sparingly, for the deserving. I don't know what the inteded purpose was, but the use I have found for it is decent. I put an emphasis on me here. I cannot presume to speak for others in this case.

I use Hall of Honours sparingly, for the deserving. I don't know what the inteded purpose was, but the use I have found for it is decent. I put an emphasis on me here. I cannot presume to speak for others in this case.

I agree so put me in the growing minority. I rarely use my HOH votes. Compared to the number of votes I have given and the number of HOH I have handed out, it is in single digit percentages. I will give maybe two out a month, if that. I honestly use it on something I think stands out and is a superior sub. If others dont use it that way, as you said we can't force someone to vote on everything or use a vote or a HOH a certain way, then so be it.

I was just stating a personal fact, which doesn't ride with the majority rules concensus I know.